Pamphlet  No.  17 
Series  of  1922-23 


DISARMAMENT 

and  the 


LEAGUE  of  NATIONS 


An  address  by 

LORD  ROBERT  CECIL 


delivered  before  the 

Foreign  Policy  Association 

HOTEL  ASTOR,  NEW  YORK 

APRIL  2,  1923 

WITH  A REPORT  OF  THE  DISCUSSION 


Lord  Robert  Cecil  came  to  America,  March  28,  as  the  guest 
of  the  Foreign  Policy  Association.  His  address  at  the  dinner 
in  his  honor  on  April  2,  reported  herein,  was  his  first  public 
speech  in  this  country.  Over  2,000  people  of  different  shades 
of  political  opinion  were  present.  The  address  was  broadcast 

by  WEAF. 

GUEST 

TABLE 

Brig.-Gen.  Henry  T.  Allen 

Judge  Julian  W.  Mack 

Harry  Gloster  Armstrong 

James  G.  McDonald 

Philip  Baker 

Dr.  Sidney  E.  Mezes 

Bernard  M.  Baruch 

William  Fellowes  Morgan 

Lord  Robert  Cecil 

Miss  Ruth  Morgan 

Maj.  Marlborough  Churchill 

Frank  A.  Munsey 

Everett  Colby 

Albert  Oliver 

Herbert  Croly 

Arthur  W.  Page 

R.  Fulton  Cutting 

Very  Rev.  Howard  C.  Robbins 

Hon.  John  W.  Davis 

Dr.  WicklifFe  Rose 

Reverend  Francis  P.  Duffy 

Dr.  Wm.  Jay  Schieffelin 

Mrs.  Charles  Dana  Gibson 

Francis  H.  Sisson 

Harold  A.  Hatch 

Mrs.  "Willard  D.  Straight 

Frederic  C.  Howe 

Mrs.  Frank  Day  Tuttle 

Mr.  & Mrs.  Otto  H.  Kahn 

Oswald  Garrison  Villard 

Paul  U.  Kellogg 

Dr.  Chaim  Weizmann 

Dr.  Frederick  P.  Keppel 

Sir  William  Wiseman 

Mr.  & Mrs.  Thos.  W.  Lament 

Rabbi  Stephen  S.  Wise 

DISARMAMENT 

and  the 

LEAGUE  of  NATIONS 


MR.  JAMEIS  G.  McDonald,  chairman 

WE  MEET  tonight.  Lord  Robert,  to  welcome  you  to  America. 

We  welcome  you.  Sir,  because  of  those  inestimable  gifts  of 
language,  law,  political  institutions  and  cultural  achieve- 
ments which  you  and  we  inherit  from  our  common  motherland. 
We  welcome  you  as  a distinguished  member  of  a family  which  for 
many  centuries  has  contributed  generously  toward  our  common 
Anglo-Saxon  heritage.  But  we  welcome  you  most  of  all  as  a 
courageous,  far-seeing  and  deeply  spiritual  representative  of 
Britain’s,  of  Europe’s,  yea,  of  mankind’s  unutterable  longing  for 
peace.  (Applause.) 

We  meet  also.  Sir,  to  consider  with  you  some  of  the  acutely 
critical  phases  of  the  present  international  situation.  The  Germans 
laid  down  their  arms  more  than  four  years  and  four  months  ago. 
You,  even  more  than  we,  must  have  felt  when  the  news  of  the 
armistice  came  a keen  sense  of  poignant  relief.  At  last  slaughter 
on  a wholesale  scale  was  to  be  ended.  At  last  there  was  to  be 
peace.  At  last  a beginning  of  reconciliation.  At  last  a beginning 
of  reconstruction.  You,  Sir,  must  realize,  even  better  than  we, 
how  these  expectations  have  been  frustrated,  how  these  hopes  have 
been  shattered.  Europe  today  knows  not  peace.  Instead  of  the 
healing  spirit  of  reconciliation  there  are  ever  present  in  many 
countries  of  Europe  the  embittering  shadows  of  suspicion  and 
hatred.  Ever3rwhere  rehabilitation  has  been  halting  and  incomplete. 

Amidst  these  disappointed  hopes  there  has  been  one  outstand- 
ing cause  for  encouragement.  One  institution  which,  though  still 
weak,  because  incomplete,  has  steadily  and  intelligently  sought  to 
strengthen  the  forces  of  reconstruction  and  of  peace.  For  your 
part.  Sir,  in  helping  to  frame  the  covenant,  for  your  tactful  but 
always  courageous  leadership  in  the  assembly,  and  for  your  frank 
recognition  of  the  present  weaknesses  of  the  council  and  assembly, 
all  friends  of  the  League  of  Nations  owe  you  an  enormous  debt  of 
gratitude.  (Applause.) 


3 


But  we,  and  all  the  world,  are  deeply  your  debtors  also  for 
your  pioneer  and  statesmanlike  program  of  European  land  dis- 
armament as  a part  of  a comprehensive  European  pact  of  mutual 
guarantees. 

Europe  must,  if  it  is  not  to  perish,  drastically  reduce  its  arma- 
ment and  somehow  achieve  political  security.  Security  and  dis- 
armament are  two  parts  of  the  same  problem.  They  must  be  solved 
together  if  they  are  to  be  solved  at  all.  Yours  are  the  first  concrete 
and  practicable  proposals  for  both  land  disarmcunent  and  European 
security.  It  is  peculiarly  fitting  therefore  that  the  Foreign  Policy 
Association,  whose  primary  purpose  is  to  contribute  towards  a better 
understanding  among  our  own  people  of  the  problems  of  inter- 
national relations,  should  be  the  first  formally  to  welcome 
you  to  America.  More  than  two  years  ago.  Sir,  we  first  invited 
you.  We  are  delighted  that  at  last  you  are  here.  Your  expressed 
willingness  to  answer  questions  after  your  address  gives  to  this 
occasion  something  of  the  homelike  atmosphere  of  our  regular 
Saturday  luncheon-discussions,  and  perhaps.  Sir,  we  may  hope  for 
some  of  the  heat  and  I hope  also  some  of  the  light  which  is  associ- 
ated with  these  regular  Saturday  discussions.  Speak,  Lord  Robert, 
what  is  in  your  heart,  you  are  among  friends.  Lord  Robert  Cecil. 

LORD  ROBERT  CECIL 

Mr.  McDonald,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  In  the  first  place, 
let  me  tender  to  you  my  warmest  thanks  for  the  kind- 
ness of  your  welcome,  for  this  fresh  proof  of  the  hos- 
pitality, so  world-famous,  of  the  American  people,  and  above 
all,  let  me  thank  the  Foreign  Policy  Association  for  the  extraordinary 
success  with  which  this  gathering  has  been  organized.  It  is,  I am 
sorry  to  say,  the  first  time  that  I have  had  the  honor  of  visiting  this 
country,  and  it  is  a matter  of  profound  pride  and  gratification  that 
I should  at  last,  after  many  disappointments,  have  the  opportunity 
of  saying  something  which  possibly  may  be  of  use  and  of  hearing 
something  which  I am  satisfied  will  be  greatly  to  my  profit  in  inter- 
course with  a great  audience  like  this. 

I have  many  reasons  for  gratification  at  this  opportunity.  I am 
not  one  of  those  who  have  forgotten  the  comradeship  of  our  two 
peoples  in  the  great  war.  I shall  never  forget  as  long  as  I live  that 
thrill  of  joy  and  happiness  with  which  I heard  the  decision  of  the 
American  people  to  take  their  part  by  the  side  of  the  Allies  in  that 
great  struggle. 

I shall  always  remember  the  thrill  with  which  we  watched  the 
first  battalions  of  American  troops  marching  through  London;  and 
I shall  never  forget,  nor  will  any  of  my  fellow  countrymen,  the  glor- 
ious deeds  and  magnificent  services  which  the  American  army  rend- 
ered to  our  common  cause  in  those  critical  days  of  1918,  (Ap- 
plause. ) I remember  very  well  that  my  happiness — our  happiness,  I 

4 


think  I may  say — was  not  only  for  the  immediate  assistance  which 
you  gave  to  us,  but  because  we  saw  the  dawn  of  a new  era  in  which 
our  two  peoples  should  march  together  in  the  cause  of  peace. 

There  have  been,  as  Mr.  McDonald  has  already  said,  many 
disillusions  and  discouragements  since  the  armistice  was  signed,  but 
I for  one  have  not  abandoned,  and  will  never  abandon,  the  hope 
that  the  great  work  of  peace  will  ultimately  be  accomplished  by  the 
joint  effort  of  the  American  and  British  peoples.  (Loud  applause.) 

There  have  been  quite  recently,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  refer 
to  it,  some  circumstances  which  have  greatly  heartened  and  encour- 
aged those  who  think  as  we  do.  I rejoice  profoundly  that  we  have 
settled  and  put  out  of  the  way  that  difficult  question  of  the  debt,  and 
I am  not  less,  not  more,  thankful  for  what  I hope  I may  call  the 
straightforwardness  of  our  representative,  Mr.  Baldwin,  and  his 
colleagues,  than  for  the  generosity  of  the  American  negotiators  who 
met  them  and  concluded  that  great  arrangement.  (Applause.)  It 
is  one  of  those  arrangements  like  ‘the  quality  of  mercy,  it  blesses  him 
that  gives  and  him  that  takes.’  (Laughter.)  And  its  greatest  virtue 
lay  not  in  the  particular  terms  arrived  at,  though  I have  no  criticism 
of  them;  it  lay  in  this,  that  it  was  the  first  great  liquidation  of  the 
economic  position  left  by  the  war,  and  furnished  a great  example 
to  other  nations  of  what  ought  to  be  done  if  we  are  to  reach  a real 
condition  of  peace.  (Applause.) 

And,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  is  not  the  only  instance,  by 
any  means,  of  cooperation  between  our  two  countries.  There  were 
just  about  a year  ago  completed  the  negotiations  which  resulted  in 
the  Washington  treaty  of  disarmament.  That  was  a very  great 
thing.  It  was  a concrete  achievement  in  the  cause  of  peace.  It  is 
quite  true  it  applied  necessarily  only  to  naval  matters,  and  was  in 
the  nature  rather  of  a limitation  than  a reduction.  It  is  quite  true 
that  it  applied  only  to  capital  ships;  and  there  are  many  I should 
imagine,  certainly  you  and  I in  this  room  among  them,  who  would 
have  been  very  glad  if  it  could  have  gone  even  further  than  it  did. 
For  our  part,  at  least  for  my  part,  I should  rejoice  greatly  if  we 
could  have  a similar  limitation,  not  only  of  capital  ships,  but  of 
submarines  and  other  craft  also.  (Applause.)  All  warfare  is  cruel 
and  horrible,  but  in  naval  warfare  I do  not  know  anything  which 
is  more  cruel  and  more  horrible  than  the  hidden  attack  of  the  sub- 
marine, made  without  warning,  made  without  discrimination,  an 
attack  which  may  send  to  their  death  not  only  the  troops  and  com- 
batants, not  only  the  men  of  the  opposing  party,  but  women  and 
children  also.  It  seems  deplorable  that  when  we  came  to  limit 
naval  armaments,  we  could  not  limit  the  worst  and  the  cruellest 
of  all  those  armaments.  (Applause.)  I don’t  forget  that  regulations 
were  agreed  to  which  would  make  that  form  of  warfare  more 
humane.  I am  very  glad  they  were  made,  but  I should  deceive  you 
if  I pretended  that  any  regulations  for  humanizing  warfare  were 
really  likely  to  be  of  great  value.  (Applause.)  War  is  a horrible 

5 


and  devilish  thing,  and  when  nations  under  the  stress  of  that  experi- 
ence are  at  death  grips  with  one  another,  when  their  whole  future 
and  existence  depend  on  the  result  of  the  struggle,  it  is  too  much 
to  expect  that  any  paper  regulations  will  limit  or  humanize  the 
means  which  they  employ;  and  if  we  doubted  it,  the  experience  of 
the  late  war  is  a terrible  warning  to  those  who  think  that  there  is 
any  means  by  which  you  can  make  war  more  tolerable.  The  only 
thing  is  to  prevent  its  happening;  that  is  the  only  security  for 
humanity. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  in  addition  to  naval  disarmeiment,  per- 
haps more  urgently  even  than  that,  we  require  ultimate  disarmament, 
immediate  reduction  in  armament,  both  by  land  and  in  the  air. 
(Applause.)  After  all,  in  many  ways,  land  armaments  are  more 
destructive  to  peace,  more  dangerous  to  humanity  than  armaments 
by  sea.  You  cannot  invade  a country  with  a fleet.  That  can  only 
be  done  by  infantry.  You  cannot  make — at  least  it  is  not  very 
easy  to  make — a sudden  and  unforeseen  death  stroke  at  the  life 
of  a country  by  a fleet.  That  is  the  work  of  a land  army  attacking 
without  provocation  and  without  warning.  And  if  that  is  true  of 
a land  army  it  is  even  more  true  of  the  air.  You  know- — we  all 
know — that  in  the  last  war  attack  from  the  air  was  for  the  first 
time  made  a practical  part  of  warfare.  We  all  remember — we  at 
any  rate  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  remember — what  bomb- 
ing from  the  sky  really  meant.  We  have  a vivid  recollection  of 
great  explosives  falling  indiscriminately  in  the  most  populous  and 
peaceful  of  our  cities,  slaughtering  without  discrimination  every  kind 
of  human  being,  destroying  the  most  harmless  and  the  most  helpless 
just  as  readily  as  those  who  were  fighting  in  the  field.  What  was 
done  in  the  late  war  is  but  a pale  shadow  of  what  will  be  done  in 
future  wars.  1 am  told  that  already  bombs  exist  one  hundred  times 
as  powerful  and  destructive  as  any  that  were  used  in  the  last  war, 
capable  of  destroying  great  areas.  And  it  is  not  only  destruction 
that  is  threatened  but  poison  as  well.  A bomb  may  be  dropped 
from  the  sky  on  a great  city.  It  may  level  large  areas  of  it  to  the 
ground.  It  may  poison  the  whole  of  the  population  for,  it  may  be, 
miles  around  the  place  it  falls.  Nor  does  even  that  exhaust  the 
possibility  of  eur  attack.  There  are  some  human  beings  who  are 
planning,  1 am  told,  that  you  should  be  able,  not  only  to  poison, 
but  to  kill  by  disease  the  population  by  bombing  from  the  air. 

Nor  will  any  country  be  safe,  for  just  as  the  (extent  of  the 
damage  to  be  done  has  grown  enormously,  so  also  has  the  range  of 
attack;  and  it  is  no  wild  idea  that  in  the  near  future  it  will  be  as 
easy  to  send  aeroplanes  across  the  Atlantic  as  it  is  now  to  send  them 
across  the  Channel.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  this,  if  it  stood  alone, 
would  be  surely  a strong  call  to  the  peoples  of  the  world  to  set  their 
house  in  order,  and  to  make  a determined  effort  to  limit  these 
agencies  of  destruction  before  it  is  too  late. 


6 


But  do  not  misunderstand  me.  I do  not  wish  to  belittle  what 
was  done  at  Washington.  It  was  a splendid  achievement.  It  was 
a magnificent  step  on  the  road  which  we  all  wish  to  follow,  all 
the  more  desirable,  all  the  more  admirable,  because  it  was  the  first 
step;  and  we  know  from  the  French  proverb  that  it  is  the  first  step 
that  is  really  difficult.  But  when  we  take  the  first  step  let  us  ask, 
where  is  that  first  step  going?  What  is  the  position  we  have  now 
reached?  In  my  judgment,  we  have  come  to  a great  crisis  in  the 
history  of  humanity.  I agree  with  what  my  countryman.  Lord  Grey, 
said  the  other  day:  “The  nations  must  learn  or  perish.”  That  is 
the  truth;  that  is  the  dilemma;  that  is  the  issue  that  is  laid  before 
all  of  us,  wherever  we  live,  whatever  our  station  in  life,  whatever 
our  political  or  social  aspirations. 

I had  the  honor  of  crossing  the  Atlantic  in  company  with  a 
number  of  your  fellow  citizens  who  were  returning  from  a visit 
they  had  paid  to  Egypt  to  see  the  marvelous  discoveries  which 
have  recently  been  made  in  that  land.  They  spoke  to  me  with  inter- 
est and  enthusiasm  of  the  astonishing  degree  to  which  the  ancient 
civilization  of  Egypt  had  been  perfected.  There  were  others  who 
had  been  to  Crete  and  who  told  me  the  same  story,  that  the  ruins 
and  remnants  of  Crete  show  an  extraordinary  degree  of  civilization 
in  that  land  four  or  five  thousand  years  ago.  And  yet  these  civiliza- 
tions, so  advanced,  so  perfected,  had  so  completely  disappeared 
that  it  is  only  the  work  of  scientific  observers  in  the  last  few  years 
that  has  brought  to  light  any  trace  of  their  existence.  Or  take  the 
case  of  Rome.  I agree  we  know  more  about  Rome  than  we  do 
about  Egypt  and  Crete.  But  I do  not  think  that  it  is  realized  how 
far  Roman  civilization  had  advanced.  I was  told  the  other  day 
that  when  in  1835  the  English  Minister,  Sir  Robert  Peele,  wm 
summoned  hastily  from  Rome  to  create  a government  in  my  country 
he  took  precisely  the  same  time,  no  more,  no  less,  than  a Roman 
emperor  would  have  taken  in  performing  the  same  journey  1 700 
years  before.  Yet  the  Roman  civilization  perished,  barbarism 
recovered  possession  of  the  whole  of  Europe,  and  the  condition  of 
my  country  and  of  the  greater  part,  if  not  the  whole  of  European 
countries,  relapsed  so  that  that  civilization  became  a mere  dream 
and  memory.  It  is  said  often  that  Rome  perished  by  reason  of  the 
invasion  of  the  barbarians  round  her  borders.  Ladies  and  gentle- 
men, there  is  no  truth  in  that  delusion.  Rome  perished  because 
the  sections  and  nations  which  made  up  the  Roman  Empire  were 
unable  to  keep  from  fighting  with  one  another;  they  destroyed  the 
Roman  structure  and  the  barbarians  merely  came  onto  the  scene 
of  the  crime  after  it  had  been  committed.  Rome  committed  suicide. 
Let  us  take  care  that  our  civilization  does  not  commit  suicide  also. 
(Applause.) 

And  if  we  are  to  work  for  real  peace,  a real  established  peace, 
be  well  assured  that  we  have  no  security  for  its  permanence  unless 
we  succeed  in  limiting  and  reducing  the  armaments  of  the  world. 
There  is  no  use  to  hope  that  there  is  any  real  security  for  permanent 

7 


peace  so  long  as  the  nations  stand  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  their 
borders  armed  to  the  teeth  for  aggressive  warfare.  Every  one  agrees 
to  that,  not  only  in  this  country  but  practically  all  over  the  world. 
There  is  no  dissenting  voice;  they  all  say  that  armaments  should 
be  reduced ; and  yet  at  this  moment  no  reduction  has  taken  place  in 
the  aggregate.  Some  of  the  great  nations  have  reduced  to  some 
extent  their  numbers  from  just  before  the  war,  but  other  great 
nations,  and  other  nations  not  so  great  but  just  as  warlike,  called 
into  existence  by  the  peace,  have  each  insisted  on  their  armed 
establishment,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Germany  has  very  largely 
been  disarmed,  I am  told  that  the  net  amount  of  armed  men  in 
Europe  is  greater  than  it  was  before  the  late  war. 

That  is  not  only  a very  serious  thing  for  the  cause  of  peace 
ultimately,  but  it  constitutes  an  economic  drain  on  the  resources  of 
Europe  much  too  much  for  her  in  her  present  condition,  and  one 
which  she  can  ill  afford  to  bear.  And  the  worst  of  it  is  that  arma- 
ments breed  armaments.  If  one  country  is  armed,  the  next  coun- 
try is  armed.  If  one  increases  its  armament,  the  next  country  in- 
creases its  armament.  We  read  sometimes  in  the  papers  of  terrible 
cases  of  human  beings  who  have  become  addicted  to  some  of  these 
horrible  drugs,  morphine,  cocaine  or  the  like,  and  they  go  on 
taking  more  and  more  of  them  until  they  are  ruined  body  smd 
soul.  We  call  them  drug  maniacs.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I fear 
very  much  that  there  are  still  some  armament  maniacs  left  among 
the  nations  of  the  world.  We  who  really  seriously  desire  peace, 
who  are  not  only  talking  about  it,  but  wish  to  do  something  for  it, 
let  us  consider  for  a moment  what  is  the  cause  of  this  horrible  state 
of  things. 

Well,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  disease  is  a fearful  one,  but 
luckily,  the  diagnosis  is  simple.  What  keeps  alive  armaments  is 
one  thing  and  one  thing  only.  It  is  the  fear  and  suspicion  of  the 
nations  for  one  another.  That  is  at  the  bottom  of  most  of  the 
troubles  that  afflict  our  world  at  the  present  time.  Well,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  what  is  the  remedy  for  that?  Why,  the  remedy  is 
simple  enough;  at  any  rate  simple  enough  to  pronounce.  We  must 
have  a new  spirit  in  international  affairs.  We  must  get  rid  of  the 
idolatry  of  force,  (Applause.)  We  must  get  the  nations  to  recog- 
nize— and  many  millions  of  them  do  recognize  it — that  it  is  not 
force  that  counts  in  human  affairs,  but  reason  and  persuasion.  (Ap- 
plause.) We  all  recognize  that  in  our  individual  capacity.  Force 
does  not  count  in  our  individual  lives.  It  is  not  a motive  that  really 
has  any  importance  for  us.  If  we  look  at  the  great  organization  of 
a city  like  this,  at  the  intricate  arrangements  that  have  to  be  made 
to  enable  life  there  to  be  carried  on,  they  are  not  the  result  of  force. 
It  is  not  because  you  or  those  who  live  here  are  afraid  of  violence 
that  they  do  conform  to  the  usages  of  civilized  society.  They  do  it 
voluntarily.  The  vast  majority  of  their  actions,  the  vast  number  of 
those  proceedings  which  make  life  in  a great  city  or  life  in  the  coun- 

8 


try  possible,  tolerable,  for  those  who  live  there,  are  dictated  by  the 
most  powerful  influence  in  the  world,  the  public  opinion  of 
your  fellows.  It  governs  your  dress,  it  governs  what  you  eat,  it 
governs  the  games  at  which  you  play;  it  governs  almost  everything 
you  do,  from  your  business  to  your  pleasure,  from  morning  until 
evening.  It  is  public  opinion  which  governs — next  to  your  self- 
respect  and  your  own  judgment  of  what  is  right — it  is  public  opinion 
that  governs  you  throughout  the  whole  of  your  life.  And  what  is 
true  with  individuals  is  true,  or  ought  to  be  true,  with  nations,  so 
that  if  you  take  the  proper  steps  to  concentrate,  to  develop  and  to 
publish  public  opinion  throughout  the  world,  a nation  bent  on  a 
desperate  effort  to  assassinate  its  neighbor  will  be  restrained  by  the 
obloquy  of  the  whole  civilized  world.  And  the  first  condition  that 
is  necessary  for  that  is  to  get  rid  of  these  vast  and  threatening  arma- 
ments which  prevent  the  full  power  of  public  opinion  throughout 
the  world.  (Applause.) 

Well,  now,  what  are  the  conditions  which  it  is  necessary  to  ful- 
fill if  you  are  to  induce  the  nations  of  the  world  to  disarm?  You 
have  no  great  land  armaments  in  this  country.  Why?  Because  you 
are  not  threatened  by  any  neighbors  who  desire  to  attack  you — 
or  not  seriously  threatened.  (Laughter.)  If  you  could  get  the  seime 
state  of  mind  in  Europe,  you  would  get  the  same  result.  If  you 
could  say  to  the  nations  of  Europe:  “Don’t  be  afraid.  There  is  no  real 
danger.  You  may  sleep  quietly  in  your  beds.  You  may  put  off 
once  for  all  this  vast  burden  of  armaments.  You  may  cease  to  create 
dangers  for  your  neighbors  in  the  effort  to  create  safety  for  yourself.” 
If  we  could  say  to  the  nations:  “We  will  give  you  security  which 
will  enable  you  to  dispense  with  armaments,”  then  we  could  ask 
them  to  disarm.  1 believe  that  can  be  done.  I believe  it  can  be  done 
like  this.  Take  a continent,  a quarter  of  the  globe,  like  Europe;  if 
all  the  nations  there  were  to  agree  that  if  each  of  them  reduced  their 
armaments  to  an  agreed  amount,  all  of  them  would  come  to  the 
assistance  of  any  one  of  them  who  was  attacked — ^just  think  what  a 
splendid  advance  that  would  be.  It  would  rule  out  aggressive  attack 
forever.  Aggressive  attack  would  be  so  dangerous  that  no  nation 
would  ever  undertake  it.  And  if  you  get  rid  of  aggression,  you  get 
rid  of  war,  because  war  must  begin  by  aggression  on  one  side  or  the 
other.  I am  firmly  convinced  that  an  arrangement  of  that  kind  in 
Europe  would  be  of  enormous  advantage,  and  1 would  like  to  see 
as  part  of  that  arrangement  an  agreement  among  the  nations,  at  any 
rate  among  the  nations  who  felt  themselves  in  danger  of  attack,  that 
there  should  be  a zone  between  nation  and  nation,  demilitarized 
and  made  incapable  of  being  used  without  delay  and  preparation 
for  the  advance  of  an  invading  army,  so  that  the  guarantee  offered 
to  them  by  other  nations  in  Europe  would  become  effective  before 
it  was  too  late.  That  is  the  kind  of  scheme  by  which  1 think  security 
might  be  given.  But  it  is  evident  that  for  that  scheme  to  be  effective, 
you  must  create  or  utilize  some  international  authority.  Disarma- 
ment to  be  effective  must  be  general.  You  will  never  get  one  na- 


9 


tion  to  disarm  as  long  as  other  nations  arm.  If  you  are  to  carry  out 
a general  scheme  of  disarmament,  you  must  have  an  international 
organization  to  supervise  it.  If  you  are  to  have  a scheme  of  zones, 
of  demilitarized  zones,  you  must  have  an  international  authority  to 
overlook  it.  But  you  have  got  to  do  something  much  more  than 
that,  you  have  got  to  carry  out  and  to  apply, — not  to  Europe  only 
but  to  all  nations, — you  have  got  to  carry  out  a scheme  of  moral 
disarmament  as  well  as  material  disarmament.  (Applause.)  You 
have  got  to  bring  the  nations  together,  to  teach  them  that  their 
common  interests  are  far  greater  than  their  common  antagonisms, 
to  teach  them  that  just  as  it  is  true  of  individuals  that  we  are  all  parts 
one  of  another,  and  that  if  individuals  in  a great  community  suffer, 
then  the  whole  community  suffers;  so  we  must  teach  the  nations  of 
the  world  that  they  are  all  parts  of  one  common  whole;  and  that  it 
is  untrue,  a devilish  untruth,  that  there  is  any  advantage  to  any  one 
nation  in  the  misfortunes  or  the  poverty  of  others.  (Applause.) 
International  cooperation  is  not  only  a proper  object,  it  is  inevitable. 
If  there  are  more  than  a million  men  now  out  of  work  in  England,  it 
is,  very  largely  if  not  entirely,  because  of  the  economic  difficulties 
which  exist  in  the  rest  of  Europe.  If  the  farmers  of  the  United 
States  are  unable  to  sell  their  wheat  at  a remunerative  price,  it  is 
because  their  customers  in  Europe  are  unable  to  buy  it.  The  eco- 
nomic interdependence  of  the  world  is  a great  fact,  it  is  not  a thing 
about  which  we  need  argue,  it  is  a fact  which  we  cannot  get  out  of. 
And  if  the  economic  interdependence  of  the  world  is  a fact,  much 
more  is  the  scientific,  the  intellectual,  the  moral  interdependence  of 
the  world  a fact  also.  (Applause.)  Why,  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
it  may  well  be  that  some  medical  or  scientific  discovery  in  Europe 
will  affect  the  lives  of  thousands  of  people  in  this  country,  just  as 
some  improvement  in  the  works  of  civilization  here,  transportation 
or  what  not,  may  brighten  the  lives  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
people  in  Europe.  Science  and  art  and  intellect  and  morals  have 
no  boundaries.  The  world  is  one,  humanity  is  one  family;  that  is  a 
fact  which  no  sophisms  of  political  philosophers  can  ever  alter  or 
destroy.  (Applause.)  And  therefore,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  as  wise 
men  we  must,  as  it  seems  to  me,  recognize  that  great  fact.  We  must 
recognize  that  there  are  great  common  interests  in  the  world,  and  we 
must  do  our  best  to  provide  for  them.  There  are  great  moral  evils 
which  affect  the  whole  world.  There  are  great  difficulties  of  inter- 
communication, there  are  great  dangers  of  epidemic  diseases,  there 
are  great  diversities  of  social  conditions  which  have  their  reaction 
on  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people  of  every  country. 
Let  us  recognize  and  work  to  diminish  those  common  evils.  Let  us 
surely  agree,  if  we  can  agree  on  nothing  else,  on  joint  international 
action  to  this  end;  for  the  improvement  of  the  lot  of  humanity  in 
those  ways  is  surely  the  interest  not  only  of  the  whole  world  but  of 
every  nation  that  composes  the  world. 

Therefore  we  must  have,  surely  we  must  have  at  any  rate  for 
those  purposes  periodic  meetings,  conferences,  discussions,  some 

10 


kind  of  machinery  to  make  those  discussions  and  conferences  effec- 
tive; and,  let  us  add,  surely  we  may  add  this:  some  kind  of  ma- 
chinery for  diminishing  the  danger  of  international  disputes,  and 
preventing  disputes  from  degenerating  into  war.  Is  that  so  very 
unreasonable?  Does  that  really  offend  any  of  our  prejudices,  or 
any  of  our  pre-conceived  opinions?  And  that,  ladies  and  gentle- 
men, as  you  all  know,  is  fundamentally  all  that  the  League  of  Na- 
tions proposes  to  do  (Applause;  prolonged  applause).  Ladies  and 
gentlemen,  the  central  idea  of  the  League  of  Nations,  as  1 understand 
it,  is  a system  of  international  conferences  and  cooperation,  not 
depending  on  coercion,  without  coercion,  without  force,  without 
any  interference  with  the  sovereignty  or  full  independence  and  free- 
dom of  action  of  any  of  its  members,  working  not  for  any  selfish 
interests,  but  for  the  establishment  of  better  and  more  brotherly  re- 
lations between  the  nations,  and  for  the  establishment  of  peace  upon 
the  earth.  (Applause.)  That  is  the  idea  of  the  League.  I believe 
myself  that  in  its  broad  lines,  the  Covenant  carries  out  that  idea. 
But  1 am  not  bigoted  about  it,  nor  is  any  other  intelligent  advocate 
of  the  League.  We  don’t  say  that  the  Covenant  is  perfect,  or  was 
inspired  from  heaven.  We  are  prepared  all  of  us  to  support  amend- 
ments if  amendments  are  required. 

I myself  believe  that  the  theory  that  the  League  of  Nations 
as  established  by  the  Covenant  could  be  used  in  any  way  as  a super- 
state is  totally  untrue.  (Applause.)  But  if  I am  wrong  and  if  it  can 
be  pointed  out  that  there  is  any  article  in  the  Covenant  which  is 
justly  open  to  such  a charge,  for  what  my  assistance  is  worth,  I 
tender  it  in  support  of  any  amendment  that  may  be  necessary  to  put 
it  right.  But  1 do  beg  those  who  criticise  the  League  not  to  rest  on 
a priori  considerations.  Let  them  not  only  read  the  Covenant  but  let 
them,  1 beg  them,  study  the  working,  the  actual  working  of  the 
League.  1 assert  that  the  League  has  already  done  much  for  the 
betterment  of  mankind.  1 assert  that  through  its  means  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  prisoners  of  war  have  been  rescued  from  hardship 
and  starvation.  1 assert  that  effective  measures  have  been  taken 
to  prevent  the  spread  of  epidemics  over  Europe  from  the  oppressed 
and  miserable  districts  of  Western  Russia.  I assert  that  more  has 
been  done  in  the  three  years  since  the  League  of  Nations  came  into 
existence  for  putting  an  end  to  that  terrible  evil,  the  trade  in  noxious 
drugs,  than  has  been  done  for  fifty  years  before;  and  1 assert  that 
with  almost  equal  speed  conventions  have  been  agreed  on  through 
the  instrumentality  of  the  League  which  will  really,  1 hope,  put  a 
spoke  in  the  wheel  of  those  devilish  beings  who  carry  on  the  white 
slave  traffic.  1 assert  that  the  League  has  been  the  means  of  settling 
several  grave  international  disputes.  ;I  assert  that  in  settling 
those  disputes  the  League  has  shown  a high  impartiality,  not  hesi- 
tating to  decide  if  justice  so  required  in  favor  of  the  weaker  rather 
than  the  stronger  of  the  disputants.  (Applause.)  1 assert  that  the 
League’s  recommendations — and  remember  that  the  League  only 
proceeds  by  recommendations,  never  by  forcing  its  decisions  on  the 

11 


people  concerned, — I assert  that  the  League’s  recommendations 
have  been  accepted  in  almost  every  case.  Why,  ladies  and  gentle- 
men, let  me  give  you  one  instance,  well  known,  concerning  a small 
country,  but  very  striking — I refer  to  the  case  of  Albania.  What 
happened?  Here  was  a country,  a little  country,  about  a million 
inhabitants  just  brought  into  existence,  recognized  by  the  League’s 
efforts  for  the  first  time,  struggling  into  statehood.  It  comes  to  the 
League.  It  asks  for  protection  against  a much  larger  neighbor.  The 
League  finds  the  larger  neighbor  has  actually  invaded  Albania  with 
its  troops,  that  its  troops  are  moving  forward.  The  Council  is  sum- 
moned. The  neighbor  is  warned  that  it  must  not  continue  to  do 
what  it  is  doing,  it  must  not  go  to  war  until  whatever  grievances  it 
has  have  been  considered  in  a peaceful  way.  And  instantly  the 
neighbor  withdraws  all  its  troops,  withdraws  them  without  doing  any 
harm  to  the  country,  withdraws  them  without  anger,  without  that 
terrible  feeling  which  so  often  results  from  international  decisions 
reached  by  other  means,  and  which  leaves  an  open  sore  afterwards 
to  break  out  and  cause  irreparable  damage. 

So  little  of  the  soreness  existed  in  this  case  that  the  two  nations 
immediately  afterwards  entered  into  a treaty  of  amity  and  com- 
merce. And  I,  myself,  heard  the  Foreign  Minister  of  the  invading 
state,  speaking  at  the  tribunal  of  the  Assembly  of  the  League,  de- 
clare that  the  relations  between  the  two  countries  were  now  excel- 
lent and  friendly,  and  attribute  that  happy  result  to  the  mediation 
and  influence  of  the  League.  Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  it  is  all 
very  well  to  say  that  Albania  is  a tiny  country;  it  is  all  very  well  to 
say  that  what  can  be  done  in  a small  country  cannot  necessarily  be 
done  in  a large  one;  but  I reply  that  it  shows  that  the  line  we  are  on 
is  the  right  line;  that  the  machinery  devised  is  not  unsuitable  for  the 
purpose;  that  we  have  got  a good  machine,  and  the  only  thing  that 
we  want  is  sufficient  motive  power  in  that  machine  to  make  it  able 
to  accomplish  all  its  tasks,  however  great.  Well,  ladies  and  gentle- 
men, there  are  many  other  things  the  League  has  done.  You  have 
heard  quite  recently  of  its  great  work  in  establishing  a Permanent 
Court  of  International  Justice,  fenced  round  with  every  precaution 
for  independence  and  impartiality.  You  have  heard  how  it  has 
done  much  to  rescue  Austria  from  a condition  of  economic  despair. 
Then,  there  is  the  work  it  has  done  in  the  direction  of  the  reduction 
of  armaments,  work  necessarily  incomplete  at  present,  but  far  more 
promising  than  anything  that  has  ever  been  done  before.  Ladies 
and  gentlemen,  I have  taken  disarmament  as  my  chief  subject  this 
evening,  as  the  chief  example  of  international  work,  which  1 desired 
to  bring  before  you.  I have  taken  it  because  the  work  of  the  League 
towards  disarmament  is  to  my  mind  characteristic  of  the  spirit  of 
the  League.  A well  known  Englishman  once  said  that  force  was  no 
remedy.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  is  abundantly  true.  As  our 
English  proverb  has  it,  you  can  bring  a horse  to  the  water,  but  you 
cannot  make  him  drink.  You  can  do  much  by  force,  but  when  it 
comes  to  constructive  reform  and  reconstruction,  force  is  of  the  very 


12 


least  possible  value.  You  have  only  got  to  see, — 1 won’t  dwell  on 
it, — ^you  have  only  got  to  compare  the  comparative  impotence  of 
the  Supreme  Council,  which  rests  on  force,  with  the  prolific  efforts 
during  the  same  period  of  the  League,  which  rests  on  persuasion. 

For  the  League  rests  on  persuasion,  and  not  on  force;  it  relies 
on  public  opinion  as  its  great  agent.  The  best  men  and  women  in 
the  world  today,  whether  they  are  treated  as  aggregates  of  nations 
or  in  their  individual  capacity,  though  they  may  do  wrong,  desire 
what  is  right.  And  therefore,  if  you  can  concentrate  on  the  affairs 
of  the  world,  the  instructed  public  opinion  of  the  men  and  women  in 
the  world,  you  have  got  to  the  greatest  agency  for  improvement 
that  is  available  in  human  affairs. 

Well,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  is  the  broad  case  on  princi- 
ple that  1 put  to  you  for  my  views;  and  you  may  say,  well,  that  is 
all  very  fine,  but  what  do  you  want?  for  what  have  you  come  to 
America?  (Laughter.)  Has  not  America  already  done  quite  enough 
for  Europe?  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  1 recognize  most  fully  all  that 
America  has  done  for  Europe.  1 tried  in  my  opening  observations,  to 
express  something  of  the  gratitude  we  in  Europe  feel  for  her  assist- 
ance and  for  her  sacrifices  in  the  late  war.  1 do  not  come  as  far  as  1 am 
concerned,  to  ask  for  a single  dollar  or  a single  man.  If  you  will  allow 
me  to  say  so,  1 am  not  come  as  a suppliant  to  America.  I came 
here  to  tell  you  what  1 know  of  the  action  and  the  objects  of  the 
League;  and  to  hear  from  you,  as  1 hope  1 shall  hear,  criticisms  and 
suggestions,  not  made  in  a merely  carping  spirit,  but  constructed 
with  a desire  to  advance  the  great  cause  which  I firmly  believe  the 
American  people  have  as  much  at  heart  as  any  people  in  the  world. 
(Applause.)  I do  not  venture  to  ask  you  to  do  anything;  but  1 will 
ask  you  one  or  two  questions.  1 have  no  complaint  or  criticism  at 
all,  very  much  the  reverse,  for  what  America  has  done  for  Europe; 
but  has  she  done, — 1 only  ask  it, — has  she  done  enough  for  herself? 
She  desires  to  avoid,  no  one  can  complain  of  it,  entanglements  in 
the  affairs  of  Europe.  She  wishes  to  keep  herself  free  from  the 
wickedness  and  perversity,  so  I am  told,  of  the  rest  of  the  world. 
(Applause.)  But  can  she  be  free?  Is  it  possible  for  her  to  carry 
out  that  policy?  Why,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  in  1917  the  people 
of  America,  1 am  sure,  desired  peace  as  much  as  any  people  in  the 
world,  as  much  as  we  English  desired  it  ourselves.  And  yet,  as  1 cim 
informed,  by  an  almost  unanimous  national  decision,  she  decided 
that  it  was  essential  for  her  to  go  into  the  war.  It  was  essential,  she 
thought,  on  that  occasion.  Suppose  there  is  another  world  war, 
involving,  as  all  world  wars  must  involve,  great  questions  of  right 
and  wrong.  Are  you  sure  that  America  will  not  feel  herself  forced, - 
as  she  did  in  1917,  again  to  enter  that  war?  Is  there  anyone  here 
who  will  tell  me  that  the  decision  of  1917  was  wrong?  1 do  not  be- 
lieve it.  And  if  it  was  not  wrong  then,  can  they  be  certain  that  they 
will  not  be  forced  to  an  equally  right  decision  in  a future  world  war? 
But  if  that  were  so,  is  it  not  intensely  desirable  that  there  should  be 

13 


no  world  war,  even  from  the  point  of  view  of  American  interests?  Is 
it  really  true  that  she  can  afford  to  stand  aside,  and  allow  any  kind 
of  a disaster  to  happen  in  Europe,  any  kind  of  war  to  begin  there, 
hoping,  gambling  on  the  chance  that  it  won’t  so  far  extend  as  to 
compel  her,  be  it  by  her  moral  or  her  material  interests,  to  take  her 
part?  I ask  you  the  question.  It  is  for  you  to  decide.  And  if  you 
say  yes,  there  should  be  some  safeguard  against  future  war,  then  I 
do  earnestly  ask  you,  not  to  tell  me  but  to  tell  yourselves,  to  think 
for  yourselves  what  that  safeguard  should  be ; whether  there  is  some 
better  safeguard  than  we,  the  52  nations  of  the  League,  have  devised 
for  ourselves;  and  if  so,  what  are  the  alterations,  what  are  the 
changes,  what  are  the  modifications  that  you  think  essential  in  order 
to  make  a satisfactory  protection  and  safeguard  against  this  over- 
powering evil?  For  when  war  begins  no  one  can  limit  its  extent. 
That  is  the  truth  which  history  teaches,  and  which  all  intelligent  men 
and  women  should  recognize. 

Well,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I put  to  you  those  questions.  In 
any  case  we  in  Europe  must  go  on;  we  cannot  draw  back  from  this 
great  experiment.  We  are  bound  by  every  consideration  of  pru- 
dence and  honor  to  pursue  it  to  the  end:  prudence,  because  we  see 
no  other  hopeful  means  to  preserve  our  civilization,  honor  because 
we  who  remain  solemnly  pledged  ourselves  to  those  who  died  that 
we  would  make  it  our  first  object  to  prevent  a recurrence  of  the 
calamity  that  overwhelmed  them. 

Surely  you  will  forgive  me  if  I say  that  “the  world  will  little 
note,  nor  long  remember  what  we  say  here,  but  it  can  never  forget 
what  they  did  . . . It  is  for  us  the  living,  rather,  to  be  dedicated 
here  to  the  unfinished  work  which  they  who  fought  here  have  thus 
far  so  nobly  advanced.  It  is  rather  for  us  to  be  here  dedicated  to 
the  great  task  remaining  before  us — that  from  these  honored  dead 
we  take  increased  devotion  to  that  cause  for  which  they  gave  the 
last  full  measure  of  devotion, — that  we  here  highly  resolve  that 
these  dead  shall  not  have  died  in  vain.” 

(Continued  applause;  standing  applause.) 

The  Chairman,  Mr.  McDonald:  There  are  to  be  no  other 
speakers.  He  would  be  a very  rash  person  indeed,  who  undertakes 
to  follow  that  eloquent  appeal.  However,  Lord  Robert  will  be  glad 
to  answer  any  questions  which  you  wish  to  address  to  him.  He 
has  not  come  here  merely  to  plead  a cause  or  to  make  a statement 
and  then  to  run  away.  So  I shall  be  very  glad  to  recognize  anybody 
from  the  floor,  not  to  make  a speech,  even  a very  brilliant  speech 
will  not  be  welcome  from  the  floor,  but  a question  addressed  to 
Lord  Robert,  either  on  the  immediate  subject  of  his  talk  or  a re- 
lated subject. 

Mr.  Ratcliffe  ^ : Mr.  Chairman,  an  incident  occurred  in  the 
House  of  Commons  a few  weeks  ago  in  which  Lord  Robert  Cecil 
was  concerned,  which  has  aroused  a great  deal  of  interest  among 

‘ S.  K.  Ratcliffe.  Lecturer,  formerly  American  correspondent  of  the  Man- 
chester Guardian. 


14 


English  and  Americans  on  this  side.  They  are  asking  why  it  was, 
when  the  proposal  was  made  from  the  Liberal  side  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  that  the  present  dispute  in  the  Ruhr  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  League  of  Nations,  Lord  Robert  gave  his  voice  against 
that  suggestion  and  his  reasons.  We  should  like,  1 think,  to  have  a 
statement  from  Lord  Robert  on  that  exceedingly  interesting  point. 

The  Chairman,  Mr.  McDonald:  Mr.  Ratcliffe,  who  is  a fel- 
low Britisher  of  Lord  Robert,  has  put  the  first  question,  which  is  this, 
if  I may  re-phrase  it  in  my  Hoosier  dialect.  An  amendment  was  pro- 
posed to  the  address  from  the  throne  in  the  opening  of  the  new 
Parliament.  The  amendment,  as  I understand,  was  proposed  by  the 
Liberal  Party.  It  called  upon  the  British  Government  and  inune- 
diately  urged  or  required  the  reference  of  the  Ruhr  dispute  to  the 
League  of  Nations,  and  Lord  Robert,  as  I understood  it,  voted  and 
spoke  against  that  immediate,  that  single  resolution.  The  question 
is,  will  he  explain  that  vote  and  that  expression  of  opinion. 

Lord  Robert  : I am  very  glad  indeed  to  explain,  and  I am  par- 
ticularly glad  that  my  actions  in  the  House  of  Commons  excite  so 
much  interest  over  here.  An  amendment  to  the  address,  in  our 
English  procedure,  amounts  to  a vote  of  want  of  confidence  in  the 
Government  of  the  day;  and  therefore,  it  was  essential  for  the  gov- 
ernment, whatever  they  thought  about  the  motion  itself,  to  vote 
against  it.  The  question  1 had  to  resolve  was  whether  1 should 
vote  with  them  or  vote  against  them.  I had  no  doubt  at  all,  and  I 
stated  that  I had  no  doubt,  that  it  was  desirable  that  this  dispute 
should  be  referred  to  the  League  of  Nations  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment;  but  I thought,  and  1 think,  that  when  it  comes  to  a great 
and  critical  exercise  of  the  executive  action  of  any  country,  it  must 
be  left  to  the  executive  government  of  the  day  to  decide  the  moment 
and  the  method  by  which  that  action  may  most  usefully  be  taken. 
I said,  therefore,  that  while  1 was  in  favor  of  the  policy  recom- 
mended, I could  not  be  a party  putting  the  House  of  Commons, 
without  the  knowledge  which  a government  necessarily  has,  into 
the  place  of  the  executive.  I regretted,  I still  regret,  that  an  attempt 
was  made,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  utilize  the  League  of  Nations  for 
party  purposes.  I have  no  desire  that  it  should  ever  be  used  for 
party  purposes,  on  one  side  or  the  other,  and  in  these  circumstances, 
I thought  it  was  better,  1 thought  it  was  my  duty  as  a member  of 
Parliament  to  give  the  vote  I did.  I am  glad  to  remember  also  that 
in  a subsequent  debate,  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party,  the  party 
that  proposed  the  amendment,  expressed  the  view  that  the  action  I 
had  taken  was,  from  my  point  of  view,  perfectly  right  and  legitimate. 
(Hear,  Hear;  Applause.) 

The  Chairman  ; We  are  starting  very  well. 

Mr.  Wheeler®:  I have  one  question  to  ask.  It  is  this.  Lord 
Robert  will  remember  that  when  the  Versailles  Treaty,  including  the 

^Everett  P.  Wheeler,  chairman  committee  international  law  American  Bar 
Association,  1896-1907;  president  New  York  Civil  Service  Reform  Association, 
1914-18;  president  Intercollegiate  Branch  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  1912-19. 

15 


Covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations,  was  sent  to  our  American  Senate 
for  ratification,  a majority  of  the  Senate,  not  two-thirds,  but  a ma- 
jority of  the  Senate  proposed  certain  reservations.  They  failed  to 
receive  a two-thirds  vote,  and  the  treaty  consequently  was  not  rati- 
fied. My  question  is  this:  In  your  opinion.  Lord  Robert,  if  the 
treaty  had  been  ratified  with  those  reservations,  would  the  nations 
of  Europe,  parties  to  the  League,  have  acquiesced  in  them? 

Lord  Robert:  Well,  I am  in  a little  of  a difficulty,  because  I 
remember  those  reservations  were  very  numerous,  and  1 don’t  re- 
member in  detail  everything  that  was  in  them.  Therefore  I hesitate 
to  reply  with  a plain  affirmative  or  negative,  as  I like  to  do  to 
questions  that  are  asked  me.  All  1 can  say  is  this:  that  I am  satisfied 
that  the  nations  of  the  world  would  not  display  any  pettifogging  or 
huckstering  spirit  in  dealing  with  any  offer  of  cooperation  that  might 
come  from  America;  that  they  would  not  look  too  closely  at  the 
terms  of  their  offer;  that  those  of  us  who  are  really  and  sincerely 
anxious  to  obtain  world  cooperation  for  a worthy  object,  would  be 
ready  to  accept  that  cooperation — 1 will  not  say  in  any  form  it  was 
offered, — ^but  in  any  form  that  was  at  all  consistent  with  the  main 
object  for  which  the  cooperation  was  asked. 

Mr.  Desmond  May  I ask  you  something:  If  the  League  of 
Nations  is  potent  to  the  settlement  of  international  disputes  as  Lord 
Robert  says,  why  is  it  that  the  dispute  between  the  Irish  irregulars 
and  the  Free  State  has  not  been  referred  to  it? 

Lord  Robert  Cecil:  Well,  the  warfare  in  Ireland  is — I have 
not  been  there — but  if  I may  trust  the  reports  in  the  papers,  it  is  in 
the  nature  of  a civil  war.  It  is  a warfare  carried  on  unhappily  by 
Irishmen  against  Irishmen.  It  is  a matter  for  the  deepest  regret  that 
it  should  go  on  and  continue,  but  the  League  of  Nations  exists  neces- 
sarily not  to  deal  with  internal  affairs,  however  deplorable,  however 
dangerous  they  may  be.  It  has  enough  to  do  if  it  settles  the  affairs 
between  the  nations  of  the  world  without  attempting  to  deal  with 
affairs  which  are  of  a domestic  and  internal  character.  (Applause.) 
At  the  same  time — for  I want  to  give  as  full  an  answer  as  I can — 
at  the  same  time  if  there  were  any  assurances  given  to  the  League 
of  Nations  that  its  decisions  would  be  acceptable  to  the  parties 
(laughter) — I mean  this  very  seriously — I am  quite  sure  that  the 
League  would  be  ready  to  do  whatever  it  could  to  put  an  end  to  the 
struggles  and  to  the  incidents  which  all  lovers  of  Ireland  and  hu- 
manity most  profoundly  deplore.  (Applause.) 

Mr.  Hossain  ‘ (From  box)  : Mr.  Chairman,  I should  like  to 
ask  Lord  Robert  Cecil  if,  in  order  to  achieve  the  disarmament  of 
which  he  has  spoken,  he  is  prepared  to  advocate  the  scrapping  of 
European  imperialism  in  the  East  and  more  specifically  the  scrapping 

® Shaw  Desmond,  author  and  journalist. 

* Syud  Hossain,  follower  of  Gandhi,  lecturer,  delegate  from  Indian  National 
Assembly  to  Paris  Conference  of  1920. 


16 


of  British  imperialism  in  Egypt,  India,  Mesopotamia  and  elsewhere 
where  British  rule  rests  upon  force  and  not  upon  the  moral  consent 
of  the  governed. 

Lord  Robert  : I am  prepared  to  advocate  the  scrapping  of  any 
policy  which  I should  describe  as  imperialistic,  whether  it  was  the 
policy  of  my  own  country  or  of  any  other.  But  I would  not  advocate 
in  the  case  of  my  own  country  or  of  any  other  the  abandonment  of 
any  trust  undertaken  by  that  country  on  behalf  of  weak  and  strug- 
gling peoples.  And  I would  not  advocate  any  policy  which  would 
hand  over  the  populations  of  great  districts  to  disorder,  bloodshed 
and  slaughter,  because  plausible  arguments  were  suggested  for  that 
course  by  those  who,  it  may  be,  would  not  suffer  from  the  result 
of  the  policy  they  recommend. 

The  Chairman  : I wonder  if  Lord  Robert  might  come  back  to 
an  American  question  which  has  been  handed  to  me.  It  says:  Lord 
Robert,  you  were  frank  enough  to  say  the  other  day  that  you  ad- 
mitted there  were  serious  faults  in  the  Covenant  and  in  the  structure 
of  the  League.  Would  you  care  to  tell  us  what  you  consider  some 
of  its  defects.  You  are  aware,  of  course,  that  these  faults  and  others 
played  a very  great  part  in  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  by  our  Senate. 
You  cannot,  however,  be  aware  that  one  reason  for  the  American 
position  to  the  League  is  the  widespread  belief  that  despite  the 
machinery  created  by  the  Covenant  for  the  amendment  of  the 
Covenant,  it  is  practically  impossible,  since  any  change  would  call 
for  an  unanimous  vote  by  the  Council  of  the  League.  It  would,  I 
am  sure,  tend  to  clarify  the  situation  in  this  country  if  you  felt  that 
you  could  give  us  your  opinion  both  as  to  the  possibility  of  amend- 
ment and  whether,  if  it  is  possible,  there  is  in  your  judgment,  a like- 
lihood of  there  being  an  earnest  effort  to  rebuild  the  structure  of 
the  League  along  more  democratic  lines  within  the  next  five  years. 

Lord  Robert:  I am  asked  really  two  substantial  questions:  One 
is  a question  of  procedure  and  one  is  a question  of  substance.  As  to 
the  question  of  procedure  I am  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  insuperable 
difficulty  in  obtaining  amendments  to  the  Covenant.  I think  in  a great 
international  instrument  amendments  ought  only  to  be  carried  out 
with  caution  and  with  reserve.  I think,  therefore,  it  is  right  that  they 
should  only  be  carried  out  with  the  assent  of  those  who  are  the  prin- 
cipal members  of  the  League, — principal  either  because  of  their  sit- 
uation in  the  world,  or  because  they  have  been  elected  by  their 
fellows  to  represent  them  on  the  Council  of  the  League.  But  my 
experience  is  that  if  there  is  a real  genuine  opinion  in  the  Assembly 
that  a particular  change  ought  to  be  made,  the  Council  have  never 
shown  themselves  reactionary  or  obstructive  in  accepting  that  inti- 
mation of  opinion,  and  I believe  that  any  amendment  which  can  be 
supported  by  solid  reasons  would  have  a very  good  chance  of  being 
adopted  and  carried  through  under  the  constitution  of  the  League. 

Now,  as  to  the  question  of  substance,  I am  asked  whether  I 
would  like  to  see  changes  made  in  the  Covenant,  and  particularly 

17 


changes  in  the  direction  of  making  it  more  democratic.  I say  that 
I would  like  to  see  some  changes  made  in  the  Covenant,  but  I am 
not  quite  sure  what  is  meant  by  democratic  changes.  The  Assembly 
and  the  Council  at  present  consist  of  those  who  have  been  nomi- 
nated to  attend  its  meetings  by  the  citizens  of  the  respective  coun- 
tries which  have  been  entrusted  under  democratic  constitutions  with 
the  principal  direction  of  the  affairs  of  these  countries.  I do  not 
myself  see  how,  from  a purely  democratic  point  of  view,  you  could 
greatly  improve  that  constitution;  but  if  there  is  any  particular  pro- 
posal that  it  is  desired  to  put  forward  in  that  direction,  1 am  quite 
sure  it  would  receive  ample  consideration. 

As  to  the  changes  in  the  structure  of  the  Covenant,  when  I first 
said  I thought  there  were  defects  in  the  Covenant,  I think  I was 
mainly  considering  two.  One  was  that  I think  it  would  be  very  de- 
sirable to  include  in  the  Covenemt  some  quite  express  and  definite 
declaration  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  war  (applause)  ; and  sec- 
ondly, I would  like  to  see  the  membership  of  the  League  expanded 
so  as  to  include  all  important  nations  who  are  at  present  outside  it. 
(Applause.) 

The  Chairman  : May  I suggest  that  Lord  Robert  is  very  tired, 
his  throat — 

Lord  Robert  (interrupting);  No,  no,  it’s  all  right.  (Applause.) 

The  Chairman:  Let’s  compromise  between  his  willingness  to 
answer  questions  all  evening  and  our  own  sense  of  regard  for  his 
welfare,  and  the  fact  that  we  have  promised  him  to  a great  many 
audiences  by  permitting  him  to  answer  one  more  question  and  then 
we  will  say  goodnight. 

Mr.  Zimmern^:  Could  not  Lord  Robert  tell  us  what  progress 
has  been  made  up  to  date  with  the  League’s  disarmament  scheme. 
I think  it  would  be  of  great  interest  to  this  body. 

T HE  Chairman  : Before  Lord  Robert  answers  that  question, 
I might  just  tell  you  an  item  of  interest;  that  is,  that  among  the 
800,000  people  who  are  reported  to  be  listening  to  this  discussion 
on  the  radio  here,  one  of  them  is  ex-President  Wilson.  (Applause; 
prolonged  applause;  standing  applause). 

Lord  Robert:  TTie  progress  in  the  direction  of  disarmament 
has  been  manifold.  The  League  has  agreed  to  summon  a confer- 
ence of  all  the  powers  to  extend  the  principles  of  the  Washington 
treaty  to  all  those  powers  that  were  not  represented  and  were  not 
bound  by  the  Washington  treaty.  I hope  that  that  conference  will 
take  place  very  shortly.  The  League  has  further  agreed  on  the 
general  principles  that  disarmament  to  be  effective  must  be  general, 

®Prof.  Alfred  E.  Zimmern,  formerly  Professor  of  International  Politics,  Uni- 
versity College  of  Wales;  now  Exchange  Professor  at  Cornell  University;  Author 
of  Europe  in  Convalescence;  Nationality  and  Government,  etc.,  etc. 


18 


and  that  in  order  to  secure  anything  like  general  disarmament  you 
must  provide  some  security  to  enable  those  nations  that  at  present 
rely  on  their  armaments  to  rely  on  the  efforts  of  all  their  neigh- 
bors to  protect  them.  It  has  instructed  a committee  to  draw  up  a 
definite  scheme  in  the  form  of  a treaty  to  carry  out  those  general 
principles.  That  committee  has  met  several  times.  It  has  now  be- 
fore it  a draft  treaty  to  carry  out  those  objects.  It  has  discussed  that 
draft  treaty  not  unfavorably,  and  it  is  to  pass  upon  it  definitely  at  its 
meeting  summoned  for  the  4th  of  June  next.  If,  as  I hope,  it 
accepts  that  draft  in  some  such  form  as  it  now  stands,  that  treaty  will 
come  before  the  Assembly  in  September  next  and  if  it  is  adopted 
there  it  will  go  to  the  various  governments  for  ratification,  for  ap- 
proval and  ratification,  during  the  course  of  the  following  year. 

In  the  meantime  the  League  has  pressed  upon  the  governments 
of  the  world  the  desirability  of  cutting  down  their  expenses  on  arma- 
ments to  the  greatest  degree  possible.  As  I told  you  just  now  the 
armaments  are  far  too  great,  but  they  have  been  cut  down  consider- 
ably, and  we  have  every  hope  that  they  will  be  cut  down  further  in 
the  coming  year. 

One  other  thing  the  League  has  very  much  at  heart;  it  desires 
a universal  agreement  to  limit  and  control  the  traffic  in  arms.  We 
have  not  yet  been  fortunate  enough  to  secure  the  full  assent  of  all 
the  governments,  but  we  have  got  an  assent  to  the  principle,  I think, 
of  some  such  limitation  from  all  the  governments,  and  we  are  await- 
ing specific  proposals  from  the  government  that  showed  itself  least 
favorable  to  the  scheme,  which  has  assured  us  of  its  desire  to  co- 
operate in  dealing  with  this  matter. 

I think  that  comprises  the  greater  part  of  the  work  the  League 
has  done.  The  subject  is  evidently  one  of  not  less  difficulty  than 
importance,  and  I myself  confidently  believe  that  with  the  support 
of  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  we  may  yet  in  the  course  of  the 
next  few  months,  see  very  important  steps  taken  towards  the  greatest 
reform  that  can  be  carried  out  in  the  interest  of  humanity. 

The  Chairman  : May  I now,  in  your  behalf,  thank  Lord  Robert 
for  what  he  has  given  us,  and  bid  him  a very  cordial  goodnight. 

(Applause.) 


‘1»! 


FOREIGN  POLICY  ASSOCIATION 

For  a Liberal  and  Constructive  American  Foreign  Policy 

NATIONAL  HEADQUARTERS 

3 West  Twenty-ninth 

Street,  New  York  City 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 

JAilES  G.  MCDONALD,  Chairman 

BRUCE  BLIVEN 

GEORGE  M.  La  MONTE 

COURTENAY  CROCKER 

MRS.  HENRY  GODDARD  LEACH 

HUGHELL  FOSBROKE 

MISS  RUTH  MORGAN 

ROBERT  H.  GARDINER 

RALPH  S.  ROUNDS 

CARLTON  J.  H.  HAYES 

MRS.  V.  G.  SIMKHOVITCH 

CHARLES  P.  HOWLAND 

MRS.  WILLARD  D.  STRAIGHT 

PAUL  U.  KELLOGG 

MRS.  CHARLES  L.  TIFFANY 

MISS  LILLIAN  D.  WALD 

CHRISTINA  MERRIMAN,  Secretary 

ROBERT  H.  GARDINER,  Treasurer 

ESTHER  G.  OGDEN.  Membership  Secretary 

NATIONAL  COUNCIL 

THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 

and 

MISS  JANE  ADDAMS 

THOMAS  W.  LAMONT 

Illinois 

New  York 

ARTHUR  E.  BESTOR 

SAM  A.  LEWISOHN 

New  York 

New  York 

RT,  REV.  BENJ.  BREWSTER.  D.D. 

BISHOP  FRANCIS  J.  McCONNELL 

Maine 

Pennsylvania 

JOHN  GRAHAM  BROOKS 

JULIAN  W.  MACK 

Massachusetts 

Illinois 

CHARLES  C.  BURLINGHAM 

ROBERT  R.  MOTON 

New  York 

Alabama 

GEORGE  BURNHAM.  JR. 

MRS.  BEVERLY  B.  MUNFORD 

Pennsylvania 

Virginia 

MISS  MABEL  CHOATE 

WILLIAM  A.  NEILSON 

New  York 

Massachusetts 

WINSTON  CHURCHILL 

MRS.  GORDON  NORRIE 

Vermont 

New  York 

JOHN  DEWEY 

J.  J.  PETTIJOHN 

New  York 

Minnesota 

FRANK  HAIGH  DIXON 

GIFFORD  PINCHOT 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

STEPHEN  P.  DUGGAN 

ROSCOE  POUND 

New  York 

Massachusetts 

ROBERT  ERSIUNB  ELY 

VERY  REV.  H.  C.  ROBBINS 

New  York 

New  York 

MRS.  J.  MALCOLM  FORBES 

REV.  JOHN  A.  RYAN 

Massachusetts 

District  of  Columbia 

FELIX  FRANKFURTER 

HENRY  R.  SEAGER 

Massachusetts 

New  York 

FERRIS  GREENSLET 

GRAHAM  TAYLOR 

Massachusetts 

Illinois 

FREDERIC  C.  HOWE 

JOHN  A.  VOLL 

District  of  Columbia 

Pennsylvania 

HORACE  M.  KALLEN 

HENRY  M.  WAITE 

Massachusetts 

New  York 

EDWARD  KREHBIEL 

FRANK  P.  WALSH 

California 

New  York 

MRS.  H.  OTTO 

WITTPENN 

New  Jersey 

“A  democracy  which 

undertakes  to  control  its 

oxvn  foreign  relations 

ought  to  know  something 

about  the  subject.” 

— ELIHU  ROOT 

Annual  Membership  $5  a year. 

Weekly  News  Bulletin,  $1  a year. 

